EagerDragon
Aug 27, 11:03 AM
Apple is now getting their parts from the same bin that PC makers use. Intel = cheap parts. Cheap parts = low quality.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's.
That $100 million that Apple just wasted on Creative could have meant new supercooled mobile G5's if it would have been pumped into IBM (Power.org). Instead we have these halfbaked Wintel parts to deal with MUCH fewer problems with PowerPC based Mac's.
http://www.appledefects.com/?cat=6
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro
If Apple could not get IBM to provide cooler and more powerful chips back then with the full set of customers behind them......... what makes you think that the pro comunity will be able to do so?
I have no idea what the pro vs the rest of us is but I am sure it is less than 100% of all users, as such it is less likely.
IBM has no incentive to produce a cool and fast chip, our pro comunity also wants performance to create all those videos and edit all those photos.
There are a few snags, but they will iron them out. I am glad they did the switch to Intel. Do notice from my signature I do not yet own one, I am waiting for Leopard to take full advantage of the Intel chips. So this time next year I will be looking to get my 1 or 2 additional systems based on SantaRosa and Leopard.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's.
That $100 million that Apple just wasted on Creative could have meant new supercooled mobile G5's if it would have been pumped into IBM (Power.org). Instead we have these halfbaked Wintel parts to deal with MUCH fewer problems with PowerPC based Mac's.
http://www.appledefects.com/?cat=6
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro
If Apple could not get IBM to provide cooler and more powerful chips back then with the full set of customers behind them......... what makes you think that the pro comunity will be able to do so?
I have no idea what the pro vs the rest of us is but I am sure it is less than 100% of all users, as such it is less likely.
IBM has no incentive to produce a cool and fast chip, our pro comunity also wants performance to create all those videos and edit all those photos.
There are a few snags, but they will iron them out. I am glad they did the switch to Intel. Do notice from my signature I do not yet own one, I am waiting for Leopard to take full advantage of the Intel chips. So this time next year I will be looking to get my 1 or 2 additional systems based on SantaRosa and Leopard.
bushido
Mar 26, 09:29 AM
Zooming on Safari is pretty nice too, not as nice as the iPad's scrolling, but still nice.
.
i HATE the new zooming, drives my nuts and works "best" using a finger of both hands.
and i never understood spaces, can't figure out what it does lol
.
i HATE the new zooming, drives my nuts and works "best" using a finger of both hands.
and i never understood spaces, can't figure out what it does lol
sth
Apr 12, 02:24 PM
Any news about what time the presentation will be?
bretm
Apr 11, 09:51 AM
Then that just begs the question, "why haven't these people left already?" FCP has been fairly stagnant for years. There are plenty of other alternatives, so doesn't that kinda make them fanboyish too for sticking it out when up to this point Apple has given zero hints about when or how it will take FCP to the next level?
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
I'm an independent corporate video editor. Work out of the house. I've been doing NLE since 1993. I started with VideoCube, then Media 100, then Avid, and then FCP in 2001. Avid had to get really behind (and threaten to leave the mac platform) before post houses made the switch. They really screwed that up at NAB that year. They had been languishing on the mac apps and releasing certain products- Symphony, DS, etc. on Windows only for a few years and at NAB one sales guy said to someone that they would essentially be phasing out the mac platform. They denied it later, but it was probably their plan. Then FCP came out and for the corporate folks that didn't need to spend 70,000 on an Avid system, it was wonderful. In the years that followed it closed the gap immensely and Avid fought back with cheaper products and options. It became a either or situation, with FCP being the slightly cheaper option. But with the new tech in the last 2 years, Apple has to leap frog again.
But still, it's so much more than just the app. Which is why Adobe (which has all the features everyone wants in FCP) is having such a hard time getting anyone but hacks to use it. There is an installed user base and an entire generation of people trained on FCP & Avid. And it was just the above fluke that gave FCP an in. It's one thing for an individual like me to switch, but for a company that uses contractors and other companies and rely on compatibility and workflows and such, it's a nightmare. I work with independent producers, and their clients are usually large companies. All 3 of us are using FCP. If I switch, I make life hard on the producer who is cutting together rough ideas on her laptop. When we deliver product, we deliver a product and the FCP project and files so that the big company, who has editing facilites of their own, can make changes without our help in an emergency. It's part of why they feel comfortable going out of house.
It's the smaller turnkey shops that do it all in house that can afford to keep totally cutting edge and buy every upgrade. But truth is, most good editing should rely on cuts and dissolves. You need anything fancier audio or graphic wise, you should be hiring an audio professional or a graphics professional.
I have the Adobe Master collection myself because I dabble in AE, PS, Flash and Dreamweaver. But the web authoring has just gone crazy. I can't keep up with all that. And AE is starting to get that way too. For me, I would just like FCP to upgrade and/or reinvent itself so I can integrate new tech simpler. Better authoring for Blu-Ray and DVD. Better web options. Importing file formats without log and transfer BS. And lets tune it up to make it use all the processors and be a ridiculous powerhouse. High end features rivaling Avid, and the touch and elegance of Apple. Plus a few neat tricks like offline editing on iPad or using the iPad as a controller, etc. would be cool and welcome.
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
I'm an independent corporate video editor. Work out of the house. I've been doing NLE since 1993. I started with VideoCube, then Media 100, then Avid, and then FCP in 2001. Avid had to get really behind (and threaten to leave the mac platform) before post houses made the switch. They really screwed that up at NAB that year. They had been languishing on the mac apps and releasing certain products- Symphony, DS, etc. on Windows only for a few years and at NAB one sales guy said to someone that they would essentially be phasing out the mac platform. They denied it later, but it was probably their plan. Then FCP came out and for the corporate folks that didn't need to spend 70,000 on an Avid system, it was wonderful. In the years that followed it closed the gap immensely and Avid fought back with cheaper products and options. It became a either or situation, with FCP being the slightly cheaper option. But with the new tech in the last 2 years, Apple has to leap frog again.
But still, it's so much more than just the app. Which is why Adobe (which has all the features everyone wants in FCP) is having such a hard time getting anyone but hacks to use it. There is an installed user base and an entire generation of people trained on FCP & Avid. And it was just the above fluke that gave FCP an in. It's one thing for an individual like me to switch, but for a company that uses contractors and other companies and rely on compatibility and workflows and such, it's a nightmare. I work with independent producers, and their clients are usually large companies. All 3 of us are using FCP. If I switch, I make life hard on the producer who is cutting together rough ideas on her laptop. When we deliver product, we deliver a product and the FCP project and files so that the big company, who has editing facilites of their own, can make changes without our help in an emergency. It's part of why they feel comfortable going out of house.
It's the smaller turnkey shops that do it all in house that can afford to keep totally cutting edge and buy every upgrade. But truth is, most good editing should rely on cuts and dissolves. You need anything fancier audio or graphic wise, you should be hiring an audio professional or a graphics professional.
I have the Adobe Master collection myself because I dabble in AE, PS, Flash and Dreamweaver. But the web authoring has just gone crazy. I can't keep up with all that. And AE is starting to get that way too. For me, I would just like FCP to upgrade and/or reinvent itself so I can integrate new tech simpler. Better authoring for Blu-Ray and DVD. Better web options. Importing file formats without log and transfer BS. And lets tune it up to make it use all the processors and be a ridiculous powerhouse. High end features rivaling Avid, and the touch and elegance of Apple. Plus a few neat tricks like offline editing on iPad or using the iPad as a controller, etc. would be cool and welcome.
gorgeousninja
Mar 22, 08:43 PM
This is just a preview of the future, Android based tablets will clean the iPads clock. Apple made the so-called iPad 2 as a 1.5. Low res camera, not enough RAM, and low res screen. It's going to be a verrrry long 2012 for Apple. Sure it's selling like hot cakes now, but when buyers see tablets that they don't have to stand inline for, that have better equipment and are cheaper ... Apples house of cards will come crashing down around them.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
All hail the unicorn rider!
It's great that you're such a fan of imitators and snake-oil products cos a lot of manufacturers are counting on the fact some people are so gullible.
I know the strategy of throwing enough mud hoping some of it will stick, but you've called 'Fail' on Apple so often that it becomes just a jaded cliche...
maybe next time you could be positive about an Apple product.
Not only would the shock nearly kill us, it might put more people off buying it than the juvenile drama of proclaiming ' a world of hurt'.
ps Oh and you do realize in your post that you've admitted to the app store concept as being an Apple product do you?
That does contradict a lot of the usual haters, so you might want to confer with yourselves on how exactly Android was secretly ahead of Apple on that.
The only strength that Apple has is the app ecosystem; which is why they are going after Amazon for spiting on the sidewalk. They know the world of hurt coming their way.
All hail the unicorn rider!
It's great that you're such a fan of imitators and snake-oil products cos a lot of manufacturers are counting on the fact some people are so gullible.
I know the strategy of throwing enough mud hoping some of it will stick, but you've called 'Fail' on Apple so often that it becomes just a jaded cliche...
maybe next time you could be positive about an Apple product.
Not only would the shock nearly kill us, it might put more people off buying it than the juvenile drama of proclaiming ' a world of hurt'.
ps Oh and you do realize in your post that you've admitted to the app store concept as being an Apple product do you?
That does contradict a lot of the usual haters, so you might want to confer with yourselves on how exactly Android was secretly ahead of Apple on that.
j_maddison
Jul 20, 08:47 AM
THIS is why IBM was given the boot.
I doubt it had anything to do with the desktop/ server market. They switched because they had no viable alternative for their laptop range.
Jay
I doubt it had anything to do with the desktop/ server market. They switched because they had no viable alternative for their laptop range.
Jay
epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Popeye206
Mar 31, 04:16 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
+1! Love this analogy!
You could also add to it:
1984-1991: GUI? Who needs a GUI? Real computers use command lines!
1999 - Vista: Thank goodness that Microsoft invented the GUI interface.
:D
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
+1! Love this analogy!
You could also add to it:
1984-1991: GUI? Who needs a GUI? Real computers use command lines!
1999 - Vista: Thank goodness that Microsoft invented the GUI interface.
:D
RUAerospace
Aug 17, 11:28 AM
Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.
I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.
Also from the Anandtech review (the reviewers conclusion actually):
The Mac Pro is pretty much everything the PowerMac G5 should have been. It's cooler, quieter, faster, has more expansion and it gives you more for your value than the older systems ever could.
Searching for Angelina Jolie
angelina-jolie-rad-pitt-
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt
Will Angelina Jolie and Brad
Angelina Jolie - Brad Pitt and
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
angelina-jolie-rad-pitt.jpg
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt
angelina jolie brad pitt
Angelina Jolie amp; Brad Pitt
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.
I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.
Also from the Anandtech review (the reviewers conclusion actually):
The Mac Pro is pretty much everything the PowerMac G5 should have been. It's cooler, quieter, faster, has more expansion and it gives you more for your value than the older systems ever could.
nighthawk
Jul 20, 09:58 AM
My quadra still runs, I guess I'm the forth party to get it.
This feels almost like an onion article:
Home Computer Gives Birth to Octuple-Cores
<enter photoshopped picture of a Mac Pro craddling its new born octuplets>
My first job as a graphic designer I used an enhanced SE/30 (with 20" external monitor). About a year later we upgraded to the Quadras, so I guess that makes me #5?
This feels almost like an onion article:
Home Computer Gives Birth to Octuple-Cores
<enter photoshopped picture of a Mac Pro craddling its new born octuplets>
My first job as a graphic designer I used an enhanced SE/30 (with 20" external monitor). About a year later we upgraded to the Quadras, so I guess that makes me #5?
Hallivand
Mar 25, 10:57 PM
Um, there's only been one release since leopard. Too soon to know if Lion will wow or not.
From the developer builds and such, there doesn't appear to be anything compelling or major to warrant anything more than a minor upgrade.
Yeah, disappearing scroll bars. A full size screen. Woo.
The UI and basic functionalities have stayed the same since Leopard, sprinkled with a bit of iOS features. Snow Leopard was a tune up, to establish the Intel line completely and such.
Yet retained most, if not all of the Leopard UI elements.
Personally, it just looks like a rough merge of iOS into the OS X environment without any refinement.
If we have to fork out $120 or something, forget it.
I guess my Leopard PowerPC Macs still look up to date then :)
From the developer builds and such, there doesn't appear to be anything compelling or major to warrant anything more than a minor upgrade.
Yeah, disappearing scroll bars. A full size screen. Woo.
The UI and basic functionalities have stayed the same since Leopard, sprinkled with a bit of iOS features. Snow Leopard was a tune up, to establish the Intel line completely and such.
Yet retained most, if not all of the Leopard UI elements.
Personally, it just looks like a rough merge of iOS into the OS X environment without any refinement.
If we have to fork out $120 or something, forget it.
I guess my Leopard PowerPC Macs still look up to date then :)
thunng8
Apr 7, 05:31 PM
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
QCassidy352
Jul 20, 03:53 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Sequin
Apr 11, 02:35 PM
I don't mind waiting till September, but not till next year. I still have the iPhone 3 and have been putting off getting a new one till 5.
gekko513
Jul 15, 01:24 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
crawdad62
Aug 25, 03:21 PM
I was a "Helper" in the discussions and I'm now a "Level 4." I've been around the discussions for quite a while. I can't say anything about the support people are getting on the phone by personal experience but I've seen a lot of rumblings on the discussions.
As was stated it's hard to gauge exactly how people are treated because most are frustrated even before they call. Same thing happens in the discussions.
My only dealings with Apple Support was a few years ago. On Christmas day the modem on my Pismo went out. I just for a lark called to see if anyone was in and not only was someone there I was taken care of quite nicely. The next day I had a box to send it off and three days later I had it back. Not bad for a notebook that was about two weeks short of the warranty expiring.
I think that Apples growth of late might be the cause of some problems. They've got a bunch of new user (switchers) that might need a bit more "hand holding" (and that's not meant to be derogatory, it's just people that aren't exactly used to Mac in general).
I know one thing for sure. Apple's decision to let their Discussions staff go wasn't a good thing.
As was stated it's hard to gauge exactly how people are treated because most are frustrated even before they call. Same thing happens in the discussions.
My only dealings with Apple Support was a few years ago. On Christmas day the modem on my Pismo went out. I just for a lark called to see if anyone was in and not only was someone there I was taken care of quite nicely. The next day I had a box to send it off and three days later I had it back. Not bad for a notebook that was about two weeks short of the warranty expiring.
I think that Apples growth of late might be the cause of some problems. They've got a bunch of new user (switchers) that might need a bit more "hand holding" (and that's not meant to be derogatory, it's just people that aren't exactly used to Mac in general).
I know one thing for sure. Apple's decision to let their Discussions staff go wasn't a good thing.
appleguy123
Feb 28, 08:43 PM
No because heterosexuality is the default way the brain works
Isn't it all hormonal mishaps in the womb? Does your God control that? If so, he is predisposing people to sin, and isn't that unfair that not all are exposed to that disposition?
Isn't it all hormonal mishaps in the womb? Does your God control that? If so, he is predisposing people to sin, and isn't that unfair that not all are exposed to that disposition?
supremedesigner
Jul 14, 03:39 PM
Make a copy of Toast and use one copy for one drive and the other copy for the other drive.
Ohhhh! That could work. Have anyone tried this before? Thanks! I'll check on it when I get home! :D
Ohhhh! That could work. Have anyone tried this before? Thanks! I'll check on it when I get home! :D
brownpaw
Jun 11, 03:50 PM
I used to work at radioshack too and the resources there suck. Activation will take longer than usual and they can mess up your account/credit. I hated activating phones cause it was a hassle since we were not connected directly with carriers.
Now for Radioshack. Brother-in-Law goes and his credit gets run twice by child who works at Radioshack and signs him up to expensive plan. So they have to call their 3rd party service provider and the manager there and employee make a big mess of his ATT account and turns out the phone they had was from a customer return, not even brand new. He ends up just getting bad credit after 4 hrs in the stuffy dusty shack. We go to apple next week, now he has to put deposit cause his credit was messed up but guess what? thats right apple waived it as they saw the mistake and he gets a brand new phone. :) Radioshack = worse place to get any phone Apple = smart well trained employees
I just talked about these cases closest to me but I'll tell you those Radioshack employees are the worst to buy any cellphone from. you take a risk with your credit, used phone possibly, long activations, and bad locale.
Just wanted to say that generally when people have these types of experiences, they are at RadioShack franchises and not company-run (corporate) stores. I have worked at both in the past, and though it's been about 6 years, I can say that things were definitely very different.
Franchise stores, at the time, did indeed work through 3rd party processors for cell phones so it was easier to mess things up. However, it was all through a web interface so more often than not the problems stemmed from the interface crashing or it not being up to date with the latest promotions, etc, than actual user error.
Corporate stores also ran through a web interface but it was directly through the carrier so it was much more reliable.
The bigger problem with cell phones at RadioShack was consistency. The sales flyers would always talk about this deal or that deal, and oftentimes that deal wasn't even offered to franchise stores.
I think a bit of this has been resolved, and I wouldn't mind getting a phone through RadioShack nowadays if there was a good promotion.
However, as someone else said, RadioShack prices on most other things are ridiculously high. I felt terrible when I saw a guy at our store sell this old man a 30-ft HDMI cable for $300. Not kidding at all. I don't know how they stay in business, their prices on most things are not competitive at all.
sw
Now for Radioshack. Brother-in-Law goes and his credit gets run twice by child who works at Radioshack and signs him up to expensive plan. So they have to call their 3rd party service provider and the manager there and employee make a big mess of his ATT account and turns out the phone they had was from a customer return, not even brand new. He ends up just getting bad credit after 4 hrs in the stuffy dusty shack. We go to apple next week, now he has to put deposit cause his credit was messed up but guess what? thats right apple waived it as they saw the mistake and he gets a brand new phone. :) Radioshack = worse place to get any phone Apple = smart well trained employees
I just talked about these cases closest to me but I'll tell you those Radioshack employees are the worst to buy any cellphone from. you take a risk with your credit, used phone possibly, long activations, and bad locale.
Just wanted to say that generally when people have these types of experiences, they are at RadioShack franchises and not company-run (corporate) stores. I have worked at both in the past, and though it's been about 6 years, I can say that things were definitely very different.
Franchise stores, at the time, did indeed work through 3rd party processors for cell phones so it was easier to mess things up. However, it was all through a web interface so more often than not the problems stemmed from the interface crashing or it not being up to date with the latest promotions, etc, than actual user error.
Corporate stores also ran through a web interface but it was directly through the carrier so it was much more reliable.
The bigger problem with cell phones at RadioShack was consistency. The sales flyers would always talk about this deal or that deal, and oftentimes that deal wasn't even offered to franchise stores.
I think a bit of this has been resolved, and I wouldn't mind getting a phone through RadioShack nowadays if there was a good promotion.
However, as someone else said, RadioShack prices on most other things are ridiculously high. I felt terrible when I saw a guy at our store sell this old man a 30-ft HDMI cable for $300. Not kidding at all. I don't know how they stay in business, their prices on most things are not competitive at all.
sw
guzhogi
Jul 15, 10:03 AM
I also wish Apple used standard ATX power supplies. That way, if you need a new power suply, you can get one from your local electronics store. I don't know if Apple already uses them, but I have a beige desktop G3 and the power supply on it is getting old and I have a bunch of extra stuff in it and the power supply can't handle it all. I've been told I can get one from a b&w G3, but going to a best buy or where ever and getting a new one I think would be a lot easier.
Kwill
Apr 7, 11:56 PM
:mad:Best Buy told me today that they had them in but Apple would not let them sell them. I have been going for two weeks every other day and they finally tell me they have them and can't sell them. I hate this crap. I want my IPad 2.
Explains why Apple is opening up Toys R' Us as another outlet.
Explains why Apple is opening up Toys R' Us as another outlet.
bassfingers
Apr 27, 04:55 PM
The right wing has once again demonstrated to what extent it's pathetic. Obama once again acts like the only grown up amongst a crowd of children. Nothing new.
Oh, I thought his administration was the one that dropped the F-bomb on live TV.
Or that he was the one who fabricated a "healthcare crisis" so that he could ram through legislation that doesn't even kick in for years
I thought he was the one who is always on the news whining about why nothing ever goes his way.
He is the inexperienced child. And if he hadn't been born in the US, that would have been great news
Oh, I thought his administration was the one that dropped the F-bomb on live TV.
Or that he was the one who fabricated a "healthcare crisis" so that he could ram through legislation that doesn't even kick in for years
I thought he was the one who is always on the news whining about why nothing ever goes his way.
He is the inexperienced child. And if he hadn't been born in the US, that would have been great news
dongmin
Sep 19, 10:02 AM
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.While you make some valid points, you overlook others:
1. As soon as the new model comes out, the older models will drop in price. So even if you aren't getting the fastest and greatest, even if you're buying the lowest end MBP, you'll benefit from the price break.
2. MBPs are expensive computers. You're investing in something that you'll keep around for 3-4 years. I want to future-proof my computer as much as possible. Features like easily-swappable HD and fast graphics card will affect "the average user" 2+ years from now (pro'ly sooner) when everyone's downloading and streaming HD videos and OS X has all this new eye-candy that will require a fast graphics card.
3. There are other features than just a 10% increase in CPU power that we are hoping in the next MBP, including a magnetic latch, easily-access to HD and RAM, and better heat management. Certainly the average Joe will be able to benefit from these features, even if all you do is word process and surf the web.
canyonblue737
Apr 27, 07:58 AM
That's good enough for me.
Apple's only screw up here was keeping the infinite database forever on your phone and backed up to your Mac. Their was no reason to back it up to the computer and no reason to keep the data on the phone after it was passed to Apple (encrypted, de-identified etc.) but I suspect the reason was simply "we weren't doing anything bad with it so we never even considered we should delete it later."
Good job Apple. Now let's move on to someone else, like freakin' Sony and their Playstation network.
Apple's only screw up here was keeping the infinite database forever on your phone and backed up to your Mac. Their was no reason to back it up to the computer and no reason to keep the data on the phone after it was passed to Apple (encrypted, de-identified etc.) but I suspect the reason was simply "we weren't doing anything bad with it so we never even considered we should delete it later."
Good job Apple. Now let's move on to someone else, like freakin' Sony and their Playstation network.
